Eots why did wtc 7 collapse

[LA RAM FAN]

Please list the reason/ reasons and the source.
A
B
C

Fashion would be helpful .
Thanks.

You really need to watch that video that Eots laid out on what happend to wt7 and read through that thread of Terrals that I posted earlier as well..Also this should answer most of your questions.
9-11 Research: Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition

something else they didnt cover there is that the reason wt7 was brought down was it housed the records of something like the CIA,FBI AND NSA corrupt activities or something like that.i cant remember exactly what it was.Its covered extensively in the book appropriately titled Debunking the 9/11 Debunking,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy THEORY.I'll find it in the book and post it later here sometime for you if you like.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

logic, reason and the laws of physics

all of which you claim to posses or understand?




next

why do people like you that have not even examined the claims of the NIST report or how they where reached pretend that they have..can you explain this ?

That is the question I would like to put to you.

Can you in one or two sentences explain why explosives where not used to bring down WTC 7 ?
I can.
But I will not , until you exhibit knowledge of the NIST rational for determining that fact.

 

[KissMy]

You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.

They also reinforced the steel with more fireproofing after the 93 bombing also the majority of the fires explosion took place outside the towers not to mention the black smoke that emits from the towers proves it was oxygen starved.Also steel framed towers steel columns are thicker and stronger from the base.They are less thick and are thinner higher up so that destroys that theory. You used to make good posts saying that explosives brought the towers down.sounds like lately you have changed your mind and been taken in by propaganda.those fires werent hot enough to melt a marshmellow,let alone weaken the steel.

not to mention it was the first time in history that a steel framed highrise building collapsed due to fire.The Meridian hotel in Philly in 97 burned for 18 hours on end and was a far more serious fire than the twin towers were.it was lit up like a torch and remained standing.you are also obviously not aware that NIST rejected your theory.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either which is how come all of a sudden you are sounding like Fizz Gam and Candycorn,disinformation agent trolls that have penetrated this site? You USED to make intelligent well thought out posts that had evidence to back them up.Like remember this one?

Not only did other white supremacist know, but the government knew, likely participated, & ATF were not in the Murrah building when the blast happened because they were warned on their pagers not to come in.
1

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/75702-oklahoma-city-bombing-7.html

Here you are confirming that oklahoma city was a government inside job and you always said the same thing about 9/11, yet now all of a sudden you are pulling a 180 degree turn and are talking nonsense? whats up with that?

 

[Sunni Man]

If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.

WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.

The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.

OK, I will give you that WTC 1 & 2 were of a unique design and may have collasped due to faulty desiign.

But, Building #7 was of conventional design.

And although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.

Never has one fell down untill Building #7 did.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?

Wrong thread, move along Mr.Kook.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report, not youtube videos of insane rants thanks.

 

[eots]

all of which you claim to posses or understand?




next

why do people like you that have not even examined the claims of the NIST report or how they where reached pretend that they have..can you explain this ?

That is the question I would like to put to you.

Can you in one or two sentences explain why explosives where not used to bring down WTC 7 ?
I can.
But I will not , until you exhibit knowledge of the NIST rational for determining that fact.

NIST stated it would of been too loud "as loud as a shot gun blast" however there are many first responder reports of explosions at least as loud as a shot gun blasts another excuse was "too hard" to get the minimum 100 lbs of explosives then they deemed necessary without being noticed and they throw in a few assumptions and some double speak

 

[daveman]

You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.

And the White Star Line said the RMS Titanic was unsinkable. How'd that work out for them?

 

[KissMy]

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?

I never said explosives were used. I noted that evidence of a thermite type of metal erosion was found in the government report from WTC7 & it could have been used to weaken a critical truss. That piece of metal is in evidence but nothing has come of it. There was also aluminum / rusty steel melted dust found. The entire skin of the WTC was aluminum & the beams were rusty steel. Also the aircraft was made up of all the ingredients of Thermite except the rusty steel. The wings are made of composite honeycomb materials pictured below.

My assertion was always if it was a false flag attack, the government likely would have just allowed Al-Qaida to go through with their attacks. Bin Laden was a CIA operative who likely worked with Bush Senior. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes at the CIA. Bush & Bin Ladens were also invested in Carlyle Group that profited from war. There is no evidence showing that Bush or Bin Ladens actually profited themselves. But psycho Cynthia McKinney did stir up some shit with her Carlyle Group \ Crusader Missile \ Bush investigation.

There is no way to prove anything because most of this is circumstantial evidence. They operate at high levels & would not have been stupid enough to plant bombs at the WTC where evidence could be found.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

why do people like you that have not even examined the claims of the NIST report or how they where reached pretend that they have..can you explain this ?

That is the question I would like to put to you.

Can you in one or two sentences explain why explosives where not used to bring down WTC 7 ?
I can.
But I will not , until you exhibit knowledge of the NIST rational for determining that fact.

NIST stated it would of been too loud "as loud as a shot gun blast" however there are many first responder reports of explosions at least as loud as a shot gun blasts another excuse was "too hard" to get the minimum 100 lbs of explosives then they deemed necessary without being noticed and they throw in a few assumptions and some double speak

Try again.
I will give you a clue . Since you are so concerned about the sound issue.
It is a dead end for your theory.

Yes evasive double speak for sure.
There are 3 major elements to the conclusion that explosive were not involved in the WTC 7 collapse .
The sound is one ,and it of the least scientific interest, please illustrate knowledge of the other elements or any element of the WTC 7 collapse.

 

[eots]

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?

I never said explosives were used. I noted that evidence of a thermite type of metal erosion was found in the government report from WTC7 & it could have been used to weaken a critical truss. That piece of metal is in evidence but nothing has come of it. There was also aluminum / rusty steel melted dust found. The entire skin of the WTC was aluminum & the beams were rusty steel. Also the aircraft was made up of all the ingredients of Thermite except the rusty steel. The wings are made of composite honeycomb materials pictured below.

My assertion was always if it was a false flag attack, the government likely would have just allowed Al-Qaida to go through with their attacks. Bin Laden was a CIA operative who likely worked with Bush Senior. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes at the CIA. Bush & Bin Ladens were also invested in Carlyle Group that profited from war. There is no evidence showing that Bush or Bin Ladens actually profited themselves. But psycho Cynthia McKinney did stir up some shit with her Carlyle Group \ Crusader Missile \ Bush investigation.

There is no way to prove anything because most of this is circumstantial evidence. They operate at high levels & would not have been stupid enough to plant bombs at the WTC where evidence could be found.

they clearly had no difficulty in omitting testimony and destroying evidence I dont agree with your assumption and the evidence of a controlled demolition is in the nature of the collapse...it is a matter of physics

 

[LA RAM FAN]

You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.

And the White Star Line said the RMS Titanic was unsinkable. How'd that work out for them?

again apples and oranges.Except with Titanic Dunceman,they did not have witnesses, many of them very credible people as I just proved in my link which proves explosives were used.the witness testimonys alone prove it and as i have said a million times,to accept the official collape of the towers,then your saying all these thousands of architects and engineers and well known scientists are not credible sources, not to mention to accept it,your saying the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years no longer applies anymore.

 

[KissMy]

If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.

WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.

The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.

OK, I will give you that WTC 1 & 2 were of a unique design and may have collasped due to faulty desiign.

But, Building #7 was of conventional design.

And although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.

Never has one fell down untill Building #7 did.

Building #7 was NOT of conventional design.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Please start your own thread Mr Kiss.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

You been reading too many of the fairy tales of Popular Mechanics.John Skilling after the 93 bombing told reporters when asked what would happen to the towers if struck by an airliner said they anticipated the fires replying-There would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.

And the White Star Line said the RMS Titanic was unsinkable. How'd that work out for them?

Please start your own thread Mr. Daveman.
This thread is about eots demonstrating independent knowledge of the NIST report.

 

[eots]

That is the question I would like to put to you.

Can you in one or two sentences explain why explosives where not used to bring down WTC 7 ?
I can.
But I will not , until you exhibit knowledge of the NIST rational for determining that fact.

NIST stated it would of been too loud "as loud as a shot gun blast" however there are many first responder reports of explosions at least as loud as a shot gun blasts another excuse was "too hard" to get the minimum 100 lbs of explosives then they deemed necessary without being noticed and they throw in a few assumptions and some double speak

Try again.
I will give you a clue . Since you are so concerned about the sound issue.
It is a dead end for your theory.

Yes evasive double speak for sure.
There are 3 major elements to the conclusion that explosive were not involved in the WTC 7 collapse .
The sound is one ,and it of the least scientific interest, please illustrate knowledge of the other elements or any element of the WTC 7 collapse.

I listed the three ..trying writing a coherent question

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcaxvQGdmtw]YouTube - NIST WTC 7 Report - Press Briefing 8/21/08 pt 5[/ame]

 

[LA RAM FAN]

apples and oranges dude,that proves nothing and doesnt disprove what I posted.you didnt answer my question either of what happened to your past reasonable posts you always made that explosives were used?

I never said explosives were used. I noted that evidence of a thermite type of metal erosion was found in the government report from WTC7 & it could have been used to weaken a critical truss. That piece of metal is in evidence but nothing has come of it. There was also aluminum / rusty steel melted dust found. The entire skin of the WTC was aluminum & the beams were rusty steel. Also the aircraft was made up of all the ingredients of Thermite except the rusty steel. The wings are made of composite honeycomb materials pictured below.

My assertion was always if it was a false flag attack, the government likely would have just allowed Al-Qaida to go through with their attacks. Bin Laden was a CIA operative who likely worked with Bush Senior. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes at the CIA. Bush & Bin Ladens were also invested in Carlyle Group that profited from war. There is no evidence showing that Bush or Bin Ladens actually profited themselves. But psycho Cynthia McKinney did stir up some shit with her Carlyle Group \ Crusader Missile \ Bush investigation.

There is no way to prove anything because most of this is circumstantial evidence. They operate at high levels & would not have been stupid enough to plant bombs at the WTC where evidence could be found.

You havent researched this very throughly because its well known that Cheney and Bush profitted immensely from these attacks with the carlyle group and that link I provided earlier explains how they easily were able to plant the explosives and how evidence of them doing so went unnoticed.You need to watch the video 9/11 mysteries. anybody who sees that and STILL doesnt think explosives were placed,well they're hopeless and in denial.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

NIST stated it would of been too loud "as loud as a shot gun blast" however there are many first responder reports of explosions at least as loud as a shot gun blasts another excuse was "too hard" to get the minimum 100 lbs of explosives then they deemed necessary without being noticed and they throw in a few assumptions and some double speak

Try again.
I will give you a clue . Since you are so concerned about the sound issue.
It is a dead end for your theory.

Yes evasive double speak for sure.
There are 3 major elements to the conclusion that explosive were not involved in the WTC 7 collapse .
The sound is one ,and it of the least scientific interest, please illustrate knowledge of the other elements or any element of the WTC 7 collapse.

I listed the three ..trying writing a coherent question

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

The sound issue has been closed .


Are you stating that a blast was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?

 

[eots]

If people actually study the design of the Twin Towers & WTC7 you will discover how faulty their design was against fire.

WTC7 had little support in the center because it was built over an electrical power station so all the weight had to be transfered towards the exterior of the building on a couple of main trusses. To top that there was many times more fuel stored in that building than those jetliners had in them that hit WTC 1 & 2.

The long span trusses in WTC 1 & 2 were extremely vulnerable to heat. Add the weight of a few collapsed floors & a loaded 767 Jet Plane to the floor below & it is easy to see why each floor would drop onto the next tearing them out one by one gaining mass & momentum. Without the floors the walls could not stand & every wall section would fall away as soon as the floors holding them together gave way.

OK, I will give you that WTC 1 & 2 were of a unique design and may have collasped due to faulty desiign.

But, Building #7 was of conventional design.

And although, several other buildings like #7 have caught fire in other cities around the world over the last several decades.

Never has one fell down untill Building #7 did.

Building #7 was NOT of conventional design.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

lol there is not one word there that says this is particularly unconventional
and either does NIST

 

[eots]

Try again.
I will give you a clue . Since you are so concerned about the sound issue.
It is a dead end for your theory.

Yes evasive double speak for sure.
There are 3 major elements to the conclusion that explosive were not involved in the WTC 7 collapse .
The sound is one ,and it of the least scientific interest, please illustrate knowledge of the other elements or any element of the WTC 7 collapse.

I listed the three ..trying writing a coherent question

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

The sound issue has been closed .


Are you stating that a blast was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7 ,is that correct ?

and how is the sound issue closed exactly ? and No I am pointing out the lame ass excuses NIST used for not properly investigating the possibly of explosives and the flaws in their fire theory